Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(appeal waiver blocks sentence review)CriminalCourt of AppealsAppeal

People v. Clarke

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Sep 30, 2026
Docket
2024-00431
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05552
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 2, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. : imposed sentences after guilty pleas.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (appeal waiver blocks sentence review)

TL;DR

  1. 1The case is about whether the man's sentences are too harsh or if his waiver stops any review.
  2. 2The court decided the appeal waiver blocks reviewing the sentences for harshness.
  3. 3The key reason is that he knowingly waived his right to appeal.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Should the appeal waiver block sentence review?

    Holding · Yes, the waiver was valid and knowingly made, so it precludes review of the sentences.

Why it matters

This ruling affects people who plead guilty and waive appeal rights. They may not revisit sentences if the waiver is valid.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Man says his jail time is too much, but did he waive his right to appeal?

  1. 1A man pled guilty and got sentences he thinks are too harsh.
  2. 2He wants a court to check if the time he got is fair.
  3. 3The problem is, he might have waived his right to appeal.

Were his sentences too harsh, or is appeal review blocked?

Be the first juror

Parties

  • Prosecution

    People

  • Appellee

    Clarke

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
People v Clarke 2026 NY Slip Op 05552 September 30, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Taquan Clarke, appellant. (Ind. Nos. 76474/22, 72412/23) Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on September 30, 2026 2024-00431, 2024-00433 Betsy Barros, J.P. Valerie Brathwaite Nelson Barry E. Warhit Lourdes M. Ventura Susan Quirk, JJ. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Alina R. Tulloch of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel; Bella Ingber on the memorandum), for respondent. [*1] DECISION & ORDER Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Michael D. Kitsis, J.), both imposed December 19, 2023, upon his pleas of guilty, on the ground that the sentences were excessive. ORDERED that the sentences are affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentences imposed were excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256). BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener